If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Would this be a bad time for me to say that, unless the GOP field of candidates can come up with something other than a retread or a wannabe, my vote is going to Ron Paul? Fighting wars is pretty hard when your war chest in as empty as a Liberal's skull. Hello?

As far as the 9/11 bullshit, it is just that. Jesse Ventura might buy into that crap and say he is a Libertarian, does that paint the whole party? If that's the case, then we Tea Partiers have a BIG problem with this asshat:

Time to lay down that broad brush unless you like it being applied equally. I'm just sayin'. I'll shut up now.

"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)

Ron Paul and KookSinItch should form their own political party. Their party seal can be a ... (I shall refrain).

Isn't that what we desire from our federal government, or did I miss something?

"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)

Would this be a bad time for me to say that, unless the GOP field of candidates can come up with something other than a retread or a wannabe, my vote is going to Ron Paul? Fighting wars is pretty hard when your war chest in as empty as a Liberal's skull. Hello?

Riiight and we can let him drag us back to the early 20th Century Gold Standard and empty EVERYONES coffers so we're all poor together!

The serious candidates for the Republican ticket IMHO haven't surfaced yet. We're just seeing the filler for the debates out there right now with one exception...Herman Cain.

Paul...like Newt falls into that unserious buch that have declared early in hopes of getting a big head start.

I think he'll be there in one way or another at the end of the day.

As far as the 9/11 bullshit, it is just that. Jesse Ventura might buy into that crap and say he is a Libertarian, does that paint the whole party? If that's the case, then we Tea Partiers have a BIG problem with this asshat:

I hate to break it to you, but the dollar is fucked the fare-thee-well. Whether we revert to the gold standard or not, who knows? We will be doing things very differently sooner rather than later. The time for choosing not to has come and gone I'm afraid.

"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)

I am not saying I would agree with Paul on many of his stances, but he keeps getting hammered on the foreign policy thing and the difference between isolationist and non-interventionist policy.

I was born during the Korean War, grew up during Viet Nam, and will probably retire before we are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, let alone Libya or maybe Iran on the horizon.
In between actual all out armed conflicts, there was the Cold War, Bay of Pigs, Iran hostages, Grenada, a few bombs into Libya, peacekeeping in Bosnia, Somalia and a few others here and there.

We have been in a state of armed conflict or at the brink for almost my entire life. I keep hearing that it is to keep Americans safe, yet each year seems to provide less security and less confidence of a secure future than the one before it.

I am not saying I have the answer or Ron Paul does or anyone else may, but 61 years since the end of WW2 has not shown the presidents we have elected to be any better.

I would like someone to tell me how they think that this country can survive perpetual war or who they think is going to end it.

I am not saying I would agree with Paul on many of his stances, but he keeps getting hammered on the foreign policy thing and the difference between isolationist and non-interventionist policy.

I was born during the Korean War, grew up during Viet Nam, and will probably retire before we are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, let alone Libya or maybe Iran on the horizon.
In between actual all out armed conflicts, there was the Cold War, Bay of Pigs, Iran hostages, Grenada, a few bombs into Libya, peacekeeping in Bosnia, Somalia and a few others here and there.

We have been in a state of armed conflict or at the brink for almost my entire life. I keep hearing that it is to keep Americans safe, yet each year seems to provide less security and less confidence of a secure future than the one before it.

I am not saying I have the answer or Ron Paul does or anyone else may, but 61 years since the end of WW2 has not shown the presidents we have elected to be any better.

I would like someone to tell me how they think that this country can survive perpetual war or who they think is going to end it.

Great post. The reality is that economic reality is going to end it. Like previous empires, regardless of their motives or even morality, we can no longer afford these adventures. We just can't. We need to focus on protecting our own territory(s) and let others do the same. Focus on defense, which is what the role of our military was intended for. Whether we want to or not, we cannot save the world from itself, but we can save ourselves.

Again, one can argue the philosophical and moral merits of our current foreign policy and our military's role in that policy, but as a practical matter it is moot. We simply can no longer afford to do what we have been doing (with debatable results) for all these decades. We can't.

"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)

but its just delusional to call him anything but a strict libertarian... absolutely delusional. He's like Harry Ried? WTF?

Disagree with him and his foreign policy all you want, that's fine... but I'm fairly certain he is no truther - the quote you've marshalled to try and support that claim fails bigtime.

If I had any reservations about Paul being a truther, you've dispelled them. A quick Youtube search shows a video of him explaining that he can't discuss the "truth" about 9/11 because he doesn't need more controversy while he's after the IMF and Fed. It starts at about the 00:50 mark: